DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> 70-200mm f2.8...is it a dinosaur?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 92, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/15/2005 12:23:11 PM · #1
I was curious if/why Canon does not come out with any major overhauls of their lens series. The 70-200 has been around for years...will they ever come out with something new? Do they NEED to? I would like to buy a 70-200 (non IS version...for cost reasons), but I was curious if anything comparable is on the way any time soon...something new? Maybe a new lens of that focal length would drive the current IS price down.
12/15/2005 12:27:36 PM · #2
You can't improve upon perfection. :D

I'm referring to the "L" IS version. Love it.

Message edited by author 2005-12-15 12:30:20.
 12/15/2005 12:34:10 PM · #3
They added IS just a couple years ago.

I think, there is more of a need to have an update on the 17-40L f/2.8 & 100-400 IS

Give me a 16-70L f/2.8 IS, and a 100-400 IS f/2.8-4 for $2G's (rotate zoom not push)

12/15/2005 12:36:31 PM · #4
The 70-200mm f/2.8L is as close to perfection as you can get and they did add IS and circular aperture blades and weather sealing to it a few years back, you can't get any better than that...well maybe make it out of Titanium for weight reductions...LOL

Message edited by author 2005-12-15 12:37:12.
 12/15/2005 12:37:16 PM · #5
What Marjo said; optically these lenses are the standard by which all others in that range are judged. Unless some major breakthrough occurs int he design of high-end zoom lenses, I don't see how they can be imporved upon. This goes for all versions, btw. There are some who say the f/4L version (the one I have) is optically superior to the f/2.8 versions by a small margin.

It's worth bearing that ihn mind, because the f/4L is a LOT less expensive and is also lighter by a fair amount. If you primarily work off a tripod, which I do, this is one of the great buys in lens-hood, IMO.

Robt.
 12/15/2005 12:44:26 PM · #6
Once Nikon, Canon and other DSLR makers ad vibration control in the camera body the only thing limiting lens quality is money :-D

Can lenses be made that take advantage of the fact that current top end digital exceeds many lens resolutions? Absolutely..If you want to pay $5,000, $10,000 or more and carry around a suitcase of a lens then Canon and Nikon and other makers can make lenses capable of resolving microscopic detail.

But the current mainstream pro grade lenses from Canon and Nikon are a perfect match for current state of the art Digital SLR's

If the market, in the future, demands full frame sensors with about 30 megapixels of resolution and total clarity from edge to edge with no light drop off, chromatic aberations or softening then...no..current lenses cannot meet that demand.

Message edited by author 2005-12-15 12:45:05.
 12/15/2005 12:45:14 PM · #7
Originally posted by theSaj:
They added IS just a couple years ago.

I think, there is more of a need to have an update on the 17-40L f/2.8 & 100-400 IS

Give me a 16-70L f/2.8 IS, and a 100-400 IS f/2.8-4 for $2G's (rotate zoom not push)

lol that lens would be HUGE!!!
Nikon has a 200-400 F4 lens out. It's 7.2 pounds and costs over $5000.
 12/15/2005 12:51:22 PM · #8
I agree with bear, the 70-200 f4L is a wonderful, weather-sealed, completely under-rated lens. IMNSHO, everyone that has the 75-300IS should have this one instead. And it is so lightweight compared to the f2.8L IS.

That said, you'd have to pry my 2.8L IS out of my cold dead fingers, I shoot in low light a lot and need its features. I'd like to have the f4L again as a backup though. Sold mine for $50 less than I'd paid for it.
 12/15/2005 01:00:02 PM · #9
I guess the 2.8 would be the way to go if you were considering extension tubes...

Here's a question.

Would people rather have the 70-200/2.8 with a set of extension tubes (lets say 2x) or would they rather have the 100-400/4.5-5.6?

Some year in the future I'm gonna have to make this decision.
 12/15/2005 01:03:45 PM · #10
Originally posted by lynnesite:
I agree with bear, the 70-200 f4L is a wonderful, weather-sealed, completely under-rated lens. IMNSHO, everyone that has the 75-300IS should have this one instead. And it is so lightweight compared to the f2.8L IS.

That said, you'd have to pry my 2.8L IS out of my cold dead fingers, I shoot in low light a lot and need its features. I'd like to have the f4L again as a backup though. Sold mine for $50 less than I'd paid for it.

the 70-200L/4 is not a weather-sealed lens.
 12/15/2005 01:05:09 PM · #11
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess the 2.8 would be the way to go if you were considering extension tubes...

Here's a question.

Would people rather have the 70-200/2.8 with a set of extension tubes (lets say 2x) or would they rather have the 100-400/4.5-5.6?

Some year in the future I'm gonna have to make this decision.


You mean Teleconverters...TC's work best with fast Primes, the 1.4X TC is ok with the 70-200 f/2.8 but I would not recommend the 2x with the 70-200 f/2.8

Here's a review of the 70-200 f/2.8 with the 2X vs the 100-400

Message edited by author 2005-12-15 13:08:13.
 12/15/2005 01:05:40 PM · #12
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess the 2.8 would be the way to go if you were considering extension tubes...

Here's a question.

Would people rather have the 70-200/2.8 with a set of extension tubes (lets say 2x) or would they rather have the 100-400/4.5-5.6?

Some year in the future I'm gonna have to make this decision.

100-400L hands down for me.
 12/15/2005 01:07:36 PM · #13
As far as I can tell, Canon seem to have replaced the 2.8 with the IS version - or at least, they no longer list the non-IS version on their site and it's hard to find it for sale (new).

So the answer would seem to be yes it was a dinosaur and Canon already have overhauled it :-)
 12/15/2005 01:09:33 PM · #14
Originally posted by kyebosh:

the 70-200L/4 is not a weather-sealed lens.


That's correct. It's one of the reasons the lens is so reasonably priced, relative to the 2.8 non-IS.

R.
 12/15/2005 01:10:24 PM · #15
Originally posted by ganders:
As far as I can tell, Canon seem to have replaced the 2.8 with the IS version - or at least, they no longer list the non-IS version on their site and it's hard to find it for sale (new).

So the answer would seem to be yes it was a dinosaur and Canon already have overhauled it :-)


The Non-IS version is still widely available new in stores...B & H has it listed for US$1,099.95
 12/15/2005 01:12:04 PM · #16
Originally posted by ganders:
As far as I can tell, Canon seem to have replaced the 2.8 with the IS version - or at least, they no longer list the non-IS version on their site and it's hard to find it for sale (new).

So the answer would seem to be yes it was a dinosaur and Canon already have overhauled it :-)

Couldn't be farther from the truth. Canon's site
Also, //www.bhphotovideo.com, //www.adorama.com and //www.17photo.com all have the lens in stock.
 12/15/2005 01:15:05 PM · #17
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by kyebosh:

the 70-200L/4 is not a weather-sealed lens.


That's correct. It's one of the reasons the lens is so reasonably priced, relative to the 2.8 non-IS.

R.

well actually... the 70-200L/2.8 non-IS is also not weather-sealed.

edit:
The current weather-resistant Canon lenses are:

16-35mm 2.8 L USM
17-40mm 4L USM
24-70mm 2.8 L USM
24-105mm 4 L IS USM
70-200mm 2.8 L IS USM
28-300mm 3.5-5.6L IS USM
300mm 2.8L IS USM
400mm 2.8L IS USM
400mm 4 DO IS USM
500mm 4 L IS USM
600mm 4 L IS USM


Message edited by author 2005-12-15 13:16:22.
 12/15/2005 01:19:23 PM · #18
way new if you have the best ?

Originally posted by chafer:
I was curious if/why Canon does not come out with any major overhauls of their lens series. The 70-200 has been around for years...will they ever come out with something new? Do they NEED to? I would like to buy a 70-200 (non IS version...for cost reasons), but I was curious if anything comparable is on the way any time soon...something new? Maybe a new lens of that focal length would drive the current IS price down.
12/15/2005 01:20:22 PM · #19
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by kyebosh:

the 70-200L/4 is not a weather-sealed lens.


That's correct. It's one of the reasons the lens is so reasonably priced, relative to the 2.8 non-IS.

R.

well actually... the 70-200L/2.8 non-IS is also not weather-sealed.


Well, I'll be damned...

R.
 12/15/2005 01:30:51 PM · #20
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Couldn't be farther from the truth. Canon's site

Hmm, interesting - they've removed it from their UK site.
 12/15/2005 02:01:33 PM · #21
The 70-200 f2.8L is a nice lens. If you look at Photozone.de, you'll notice that it's very comparable to primes and that it's actually quite a bit sharper than the IS version.

They also have a test of the 80-200 f2.8L, which was replaced by the 70-200 f2.8L. Both of them have excellent optics. It would be hard to see where they can improve the lens' performance since it's pretty close to optimal sharpness at f4, just one stop from wide open, which is impressive. Even if they improved the optics, it would be marginal.

I think the 70-200 f2.8L is an excellent lens and would suit most demanding photogs.
 12/15/2005 02:15:59 PM · #22
I think based on PhotoDo and PhotoZone you'd have to go to Canon's top of the line primes (50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.2L or 135 f/2L) or go find an older copy of the 80-200 f/2.8L to surpass the quality of the 70-200 f/2.8 with or without IS. The next step is to buy and adapter and mount non-Canon glass if you feel that you need something better (and there may well be some photogs on here who would see the benefits of Zeiss or Contax or something else).
 12/15/2005 02:17:04 PM · #23
I think based on PhotoDo and PhotoZone you'd have to go to Canon's top of the line primes (50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.2L or 135 f/2L) or go find an older copy of the 80-200 f/2.8L to surpass the quality of the 70-200 f/2.8 with or without IS. The next step is to buy and adapter and mount non-Canon glass if you feel that you need something better (and there may well be some photogs on here who would see the benefits of Zeiss or Contax or something else).
 12/15/2005 02:21:22 PM · #24
yes it's true, the 80-200L/2.8 is pretty sweet, i love mine :-)
 12/15/2005 02:32:59 PM · #25
Originally posted by KevinRiggs:
I think based on PhotoDo and PhotoZone you'd have to go to Canon's top of the line primes (50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.2L or 135 f/2L) or go find an older copy of the 80-200 f/2.8L to surpass the quality of the 70-200 f/2.8 with or without IS. The next step is to buy and adapter and mount non-Canon glass if you feel that you need something better (and there may well be some photogs on here who would see the benefits of Zeiss or Contax or something else).


I also saw that the 200 1.8 rated as the sharpest canon lens. I've been thinking of picking up an exotic 21mm to use on my canon.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 07:35:07 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 07:35:07 PM EDT.